Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: leftwinger57 Date: Jul 20, 2012 8:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Good point, but from what the scetchy news reports said was that he also used some kind of gas/smoke/mace to distrupt first and get people as they were leaving so getting the jump on him was not likely to happen.This guy thought this through it wasn't just a spur of the moment decision. Me I'm in Jersey and a friend of mine retired from being a HomeLand Security fire arms instructor down in Florida.There like Colorado, Louisiana ,Texas, Alaska are really tolerant w/ fire arms .In New Jersey they are very uptight and controll what type of ammo one can use and there are not alot of puplic ranges.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jul 20, 2012 8:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Yes, I read that as well. I suppose the follow-up point I'd make is just having a CCW permit isn't sufficient.

Training, training, training. And I don't mean just heading down to the range on the weekend and putting round after round in a 2 inch diameter group center of mass on a stationary target.

Realistic training like an IDPA course, where movement and exertion come into play. Step it up to an ECQC (Extreme Close Quarter Combat) seminar series for even more physical and mental stress in the training.

Approached properly, both of these courses will train you to be able to incorporate the physiological and mental stresses you get bombarded with in a violent situiation.

Those who can overcome or limit these stresses the fastest will be have a much better chance at reacting to the situation in a manner that greatly increases their chances of not getting hurt and/or terminating the situation. But the only way to get there is through training.

I've probably put 15,000 rounds through my Sig since I first got it (yup, on my second barrel for any of you wondering) and can pretty much put rounds in the same hole from 7 feet up to 25 yards, but it wasn't until I took a few of these stressor courses that I felt like I had been trained to react in a real life situation where odds of me being able to terminate the situation on terms favorable to me and my loved ones were greatly improved.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 20, 2012 7:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

You do realize that you are describing hell? - not a civilized society? Not "just" heading down to the range on the weekend and putting round after round in a 2 inch diameter group center of mass on a stationary target-no, that's not good enough, what I should do if I really want to feel safe is take an "Extreme Close Quarter Combat Seminar." You are suggesting that we LIVE THIS WAY.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jul 20, 2012 8:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

ringo -

It doesn't have anything to do with feeling safe. When an asocial sociopath decides to target you, you don't have the choice of niceties or talking or inaction to get out of the situation. You can talk your way through a social or antisocial disagreement or let the situation defuse though inaction because your adversary is still mentally constrained by society's rules, but you simply cannot survive an asocial encounter without action. And doing nothing is not action.

It's not "living" that way. It's being prepared how to respond when someone else decides thats the "way" they are going to take you. I don't have flood insurance on my house because I want a hurricane to drive a 30 foot storm surge through Hampton Roads......

Outside of combat, I have never had to draw on ECQC training in a non-military setting. I will be thrilled if I never have to.

But I'm not so sanguine as to think it could or will never happen to me - like 71 people in Aurora, CO probably thought about 24 hours ago......

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 4:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

I understand. So people like me must 1) take a seminar in Extreme Close Quarters Combat or 2) hope that, if such an incident occurs, someone like you is in the crowd?

No. I should not have to live that way. I have a RIGHT to go to the grocery store, shopping mall, and movie theater unarmed and totally unprepared for Hand-to-Hand Combat.

The answer is not to arm me, or send me out in public only if I am accompanied by trained combat veterans, but to unarm the other guy. Make it SAFE for me, don't tell me I can't go out without a bodyguard or expect to be mowed down in the popcorn line at the movies.

Put another way: SYSTEMATICALLY unarm the crazies - not ONE BY ONE in movie theaters!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 21, 2012 6:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Living as I do in a country where the citizenry and the police force are not routinely armed perhaps I should refrain from pitching in, but lack of experience has never been a disqualification for comment here, so...

People speak blithely of 'rights' - I have a right to do that, a right to expect this - but 'rights' aren't a universal given like the law of gravity where we're all pulled in the same direction like it or not, 'rights' are something you fight for, 'rights' are given by something or someone willing enough and strong enough to grant those rights. Rights are something you keep because you, or your defenders, are more potent than the forces that would deny you those rights. Most people recognise that life goes more efficiently through cooperation rather than antagonism but there will always be some who don't care a damn for your comfort and well being. There is no such thing as guaranteed safety that doesn't involve repressive legislation and a very substantial loss of freedom.

You speak of disarming 'the other guy'. But how do you know who 'the other guy' is? The crazy isn't going to identify himself as such until he actually does something crazy. By which time it's too late to be pre-emptive and you'd better be hoping that there's someone around ready to do more than throw their hands in the air and complain about their rights being violated.

If I ever find myself in a life threatening situation I know exactly which member of this forum I'd want to have standing alongside me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Jul 21, 2012 1:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Exactly. If some disturbed wackjob who spends most of his time fondling his dead mothers undergarments decides he is going to make some random people pay, I'm pretty sure he'll find some way of doing it. We can certainly make it harder for him to purchase certain items, but in the end it will end badly for some innocent people. Look at what happened in Oklahoma City in 95; very few people are more motivated then a psychopath. Not to say that the gun control laws in this country are anywhere close to being sane. The argument that "my forefathers died for my right to defend myself" doesn't really hold up anymore. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson never envisioned being able to buy an AR-15 assault rifle with a 100 cartridge magazine drum attached at the corner sporting goods store. Folks want to literally interpret the Constitution? OK, everyone turn in their weapons and we all get a single shot muzzle loader in exchange.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 2:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Who can resist defending your right to fondle women's undergraments while loading a musket?

ER, wait a minute...

FRankly, I may stand a chance if we revert to single shot weapons; at that rate, I'd probably be able to block the sun with my girth, disrupting the loader's light just enough to...ah, this is getting seriously off track.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 21, 2012 2:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

According to your wife a single shot weapon is all you've got. And misfires, I hear, are not that uncommon.



I dunno, was that a little too SDH d'ya think? I'm out of practise!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 3:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Practice makes perfect...eh?

It's good to see you, and yes, in a nonacademic situation, I'd like MJ along; I'd let Ring try to talk the whacko out of it first, but half way thru, well, you get the idea...

;)

I hope it's okay to discuss this, ivory tower fashion, so soon, and hey--leave Mrs Tell out of this...she never got used to the bolt from the blue, or was it a minnie ball or...damn.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 21, 2012 3:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Talking and discussion helps us to understand what happened. Humour helps us to cope with what we find.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 4:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Yes, I think we'll be needing more and more humor these days...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Jul 21, 2012 4:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

"Humour helps us to cope with what we find"

That's what Mrs. Tell said.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 6:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

I was wondering why she's always laughing...hmmm.

Hey!?!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

" I'd let Ring try to talk the whacko out of it "

I'd give it a shot (ha! a pun). I have been the victim of a violent crime – I was raped when I was 23. I persuaded my rapist not to kill me. He had a knife at my throat repeatedly for an hour. I can talk fast under pressure. I laid out for him a number of reasons it was not going to be necessary or sensible to kill me. I explained that killing me was not the best plan for him at that moment - getting out of there and leaving me alive was a much better plan – much less risky for him, I was nowhere near a phone (long before cell phones) and I wasn’t going to scream (I was too busy throwing up - grossed him out). But he wasn’t crazy, most criminals aren’t crazy, and I've always figure my arguments made sense to him. Or else I was just lucky, and like to tell myself I somehow influenced the outcome, even though I didn't. Don't know.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 22, 2012 6:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Writing that took heart of gold courage Ring. I'm so sorry. The biggest fuck you we can do to the darkness is live as well as we can.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Jul 22, 2012 6:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

"Holy Crap" indeed.

The survival instinct of humans is amazing. And the tales of survivors are inspirational.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Holy crap.

I'm so sorry, and I'm so impressed by what you managed to do. That's incredible. Horrific and incredible.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Yes, I will tell you it's something I give myself credit for - survival instincts. We all play to our strengths - under pressure, I start reasoning and arguing. I may have bored him - eventually he simply left.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 22, 2012 2:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Whoaaa...I am impressed, and sad, for it's terrible that you had to experience that (perhaps contributing to the amazing person you come across as here and via email).

I am happy to be able to call you friend, and again impressed that women like you, my wife, and others, have so much more strength than I do!

And, knew this was an issue we'd be on the same side...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 22, 2012 6:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Thank you WT, likewise :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 21, 2012 10:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

A friend of mine was once walking home when a guy jumped out of the bushes, very stereotypically, and tried to rape her. She lost a shoe in the struggle -- and then picked it up and started hitting him until he ran off.

Another friend once stopped on the road with a car problem. A guy stopped to "help" and tried to rape her. She hit him with the tire iron.

Strong women all. But you survived the full crappola experience. Amazing.

What's the stat? One in three women? One in four? When I was very young, I thought that was maybe an exaggeration -- until I started hearing stories.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 22, 2012 6:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Yeah, most women have some kind of story of disaster or near-disaster. Like your friend I was attacked by someone who quite literally jumped out of a bush and grabbed me. It does happen. Date rape or acquaintance rape is much more common, but there is also such a thing as a totally random attack. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 22, 2012 5:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

The last time you were within earshot of an angry mob, the person standing alongside you, was me. Thus I assume it is I, elbow, whom you speak of. Gotta admit, there was no better way to avoid that mob, then to look for a pub in the opposite direction.

However if we weren't in your country, where people were not routinely armed, would we have even bothered to to meet up and hit the pubs that day? I didn't feel that might life was in threat. The chance that you may encounter lethal force does change your decision-making process. Those moviegoers never even considered that possibility. It is sad that we think they should have. I guess i think that people have the right to own lethal weapons, but i also think that with that right they should have to accept a an increased level of regulation. Freedom should err on the side of protecting the innocent.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Hi Rob,
"People speak blithely of 'rights' - I have a right to do that, a right to expect this - but 'rights' aren't a universal given like the law of gravity where we're all pulled in the same direction like it or not, 'rights' are something you fight for, 'rights' are given by something or someone willing enough and strong enough to grant those rights. Rights are something you keep because you, or your defenders, are more potent than the forces that would deny you those rights."

I agree that rights aren’t some kind of “given” from the universe. They are a human construction. But defining them as something that must be fought over is also a little narrow. Rights might be contracted for or legislated or decreed or negotiated (or probably achieved a bunch of other ways I’m not thinking of; imposed by alien overlords?). In the US, we have a constitution that some fellows wrote a couple of centuries ago that grants us certain rights. I think that my being able to go to the movies – or otherwise simply amble about in a public space in my leisure time - without being prepared for gunfire to break out, falls under the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that the constitution grants me as a US citizen.

Not everything important in life is something that by definition must be fought over – must be a guy thing – and I think this is what you mean when you acknowledge:

“Most people recognise that life goes more efficiently through cooperation rather than antagonism”

And continue: “but there will always be some who don't care a damn for your comfort and well being. There is no such thing as guaranteed safety that doesn't involve repressive legislation and a very substantial loss of freedom.”

I am not requesting guaranteed safety. But there are certainly ways to improve safety. The fact that we can’t achieve perfection isn’t an argument not to try to improve things. If by “repressive” you mean gun control, I would find it ludicrous to consider the lack of the right to buy any gun I want, any time I want, a “very substantial loss of freedom.”

“You speak of disarming 'the other guy'. But how do you know who 'the other guy' is? The crazy isn't going to identify himself as such until he actually does something crazy. By which time it's too late to be pre-emptive and you'd better be hoping that there's someone around ready to do more than throw their hands in the air and complain about their rights being violated.”

I don’t know who the crazy guy is. I’m not suggesting I can be completely safe from the crazy guy. I know I can be safer, the fewer people have guns. Simple math … NOBODY needs assault weapons, other than the military and the police. There is no need to sort out who is crazy or not. I’m not crazy, but I’d be a danger to myself and others with a gun (no amount of training could possibly change that - it would be totally hopeless).

Even if some small minority are trained the way Mando is trained, that’s not an argument against gun control. Guns are simply dangerous when distributed randomly through the population, which is the current policy here. It’s harder for me to renew my driver’s license than it would be for me to buy a gun.

"If I ever find myself in a life threatening situation I know exactly which member of this forum I'd want to have standing alongside me."

Not to disrespect Mando in any way, but aside from the fact that very few people in the general population are trained that way (and the idea that most of us should undertake such training, prepared every time we go out for Combat in Extremely Close Quarters, is, as I originally said, my idea of hell) … it’s a long shot that even someone with his kind of training would be able to help you in such a situation. In the dark movie theater the other night, it would have been even more apocalyptic - if that’s possible - if OTHER people had started firing, regardless of how stunningly well trained they were.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Plus he was covered in bullet-proof gear.

There's simply no way to out-think someone who is absolutely and utterly dedicated to doing something like this. In that sense it's like terrorism. A lot of people who passionately support the "right to bear arms" also support the right to restrict other liberties in order to have a better shot at fighting terrorists.

(I'm not getting into that argument; just saying that everyone pretty much agrees that free societies have a right to make laws to protect the safety of citizens, and that those laws are like to be neither perfect nor foolproof. People just restrict or permit different types of liberties in their effort to make the "best" laws.)

Btw on assault weapons: What was the 18th century equivalent of a weapon designed to take out many people at once, very quickly? Perhaps a fully equipped artillery battery? Did the founding fathers envision the "right to bear arms" as including the right for private individuals to keep a fully stocked artillery battery at their homes? Militias are mentioned, but were private individuals ever granted the right to operate their own personal regiments, owned and operated by a single individual and deployed at the will of one person? Because that would be the real equivalent of today's assault weapons ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 22, 2012 2:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Hi D. - been a while.

May I just correct you on a small but significant point? What I said was that rights are something you fight for - not something to be fought over. There's a real difference - it's the distinction if you like between simply grabbing whatever you can and demanding that everyone, weak and strong, gets a fair share. The important things in life might not be worth fighting over, but they are most definitely worth fighting for. That's not a guy thing - that's a human thing.

By repression and loss of freedom I was thinking more in terms of full body x-rays at transport terminals, stop and search of everyone, compulsory id cards, curfews, detention without trial, not simply gun control, but the effective imposition of a police state.

There's lots more to talk about - and I'd be glad to do that - but I think maybe the forum might want to move on. If you want to continue the discussion via email I'd be glad to hear from you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 22, 2012 6:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Hi Rob! I'll try to write - I don't know if I have more on the topic or not ... I'm sure we agree on the repressiveness of all the nonsense at the airport. Not only repressive but probably completely useless. Certainly doesn't make ME feel safer.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jul 21, 2012 6:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

"I understand. So people like me must 1) take a seminar in Extreme Close Quarters Combat or 2) hope that, if such an incident occurs, someone like you is in the crowd?"

No ring. You don't "have" to take ECQC or IDPA or TFT or study martial arts or hire bodyguards. But you need to be aware that there are people in society who view the life of other humans as disposable. The choice is entirely up to you how you might prepare yourself for the, Good Lord willing, remote chance that you or a loved one is singled out by one of these vermin as a target for violent crime.


"No. I should not have to live that way. I have a RIGHT to go to the grocery store, shopping mall, and movie theater unarmed and totally unprepared for Hand-to-Hand Combat."

ring -

I sympathize with you, I really do, and I truly hope that doesn't sound patronizing as that is not my intent.

Indeed, you shouldn't have to live that way, but there are predatory sociopaths that move among us every day that really don't care about how you think you shoul live your life. They are focused on what they want and if they decide you are their target or you are between them and their target they will do whatever it takes to accomplish that. They don't care, they cannot be reasoned with and they will repeatedly stick a knife in your heart without breaking a sweat.

The reality is, you don't have a right to any of what you commented on. What you do have is an expectation of what you think you should be able to do. Unfortunately there is a sliver of society that just doesn't give a shit about what you think.

If I read your post correctly, you have made this about gun ownership. It's not. There is no conceivable way to eliminate all guns from the criminal element in society. I'm sure you've heard the expression tha "If the government were to outlaw guns, only outlaws would have them." If our government ever tried to implement widespread gun control or make ownership of firearms illegal, I suspect that overnight, there would be tens of millions of outlaws with guns. The gun cannot be uninvented. A gun is just a tool. A knife is just a tool. A bat, or a pipe or fists are simply tools.

The real weapon in these encounters is the intent and functioning mind of the assailant. How do you propose to unarm that?

I know how I would.....

I respect your differeing opinions. I spent most of my adult life helping to preserve your right to speak your mind. What I GREATLY appreciate is your civil manner in discussing them.

For that, thank you.

This post was modified by Mandojammer on 2012-07-21 13:46:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 3:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Hey Mando--likewise on the enjoyment via a civil discussion on this...I am sure that all of us in this thread can continue to do so...as I indicated in the other post, my real pt is in an entirely abstract sense, the most efficient means by which society can reduce violence to tolerable levels, given the common denominator of the ave Joe in the US (ahem...sorry, but it's got to factor in), we should avoid the "arm everyone" approach (while defending the right of really unique individuals to do so), and stick to the classic, less than perfect police state approach that's worked fairly well for 75 yrs or so (since the FBI decided machine guns req'd an equivalent response).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Jul 22, 2012 12:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

In view of the horrible circumstances this has been one of the best threads in a while, and I include in that Ringo's brave telling of her experience.

I'd just like to add a quote from Bill Hicks here - 'England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns - whoo! I'm gettin' a stiffy! - 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a comunist to make one.'

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

"The real weapon in these encounters is the intent and functioning mind of the assailant. How do you propose to unarm that?"

I do propose we try to unarm that - again it cannot guarantee us safety from dangerous crazy people, but it is possible to "unarm" some of them through therapy, medication, hospitalization, better screening in schools, better educating the public about mental illness, etc.

Ok I am climbing down off my soapbox for this evening.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Well I thank you too. I just have one other small point here ... the term "sociopath" is misused a lot these days. Someone wrote a book a few years ago claiming - ludicrously - that some crazy high percentage of your neighbors are actually sociopaths. Now sociopath is a buzzword. Not all crimes, even wild random shooting sprees, are committed by sociopaths. Crime is not all done by evil people with absolutely no conscience for no reason civilized people could possibly understand. Or done by people who cannot possibly be stopped or redeemed. I just don't think that's true. MOST crime is not committed by sociopaths. A true sociopath has absolutely no capacity for empathy with fellow humans. Most crime is not like that - most crime really does have reasons, people snap - we ALL could snap. Maybe we can work on such reasons, conceivably, rather than just assuming we can only respond by arming enough people, and training them within an inch of their lives, to take out the shooter once he/she starts shooting.

From the reports coming out, the shooter was until just a few weeks ago a person with a history of accomplishments and a promising future. Something in him snapped. I can't guess why, but I think it's worth asking why, I don't think it's enough to assume that he was simply "vermin."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: leftwinger57 Date: Jul 21, 2012 2:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

I think your missing jammer's point .There is no way to defend yourself from that one nut factory who planned every diabolic move,from obtaining the ammo,the incendiary devices,the boobey traps in his apt to distract and maim 1st responders.Even being armed and well trained I seriously doubt anyone would be ready for that scenario in a dark movie theater. Also I really do not think this guy wanted to die,he had full body armour and gave up w/o shooting himself.This was not a hostage situation this was a planned,a no well planned mass murder.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 21, 2012 9:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

"There is no way to defend yourself from that one nut factory"

There IS a way. It is not perfect, it is not a guarantee, but there IS a defense against random nuts with guns - take AWAY their guns. Yes they can still find some other way, yes criminals will still have guns. But is there some reason we have to actually hand them the guns, no questions asked? Doesn't it make sense to TRY to prevent nuts from getting guns?

It's like saying even with laws against drunk driving, some people will still drive drunk - so let's repeal the laws against drunk driving.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 6:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Excellent; yes, it's a misplaced notion of risk aversion...it's a lot more "fun" to learn how to shoot, and be prepared for the one in a trillion opportunity (who doesn't agree with the idealized scenario: whacko knocks on door, steps in, you blow them away and go back to sleep?), but really, one could do a lot more to minimize death prospects by, I dunno, taking multiple defensive driving courses, learning tracheotomies, advanced CPR, carrying electro shock paddles...you get the idea. You'd greatly increase survivorship of you + family by doing these things...we all in fact can (and do) have the ability to go out each and ever day with a higher chance (still) of being run over than dying a violent death we could prevent if carrying a gun.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jul 21, 2012 7:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

PM Tell -

I think you have conflated risk aversion and risk mitigation.

First of all, the odds of you being targeted for violent crime are considerably less than one in a trillion. Yes I know you were only making a point that the chances are remote. But don't be fooled into thinking that remote is close enough to zero that one should dismiss it.

I couldn't help but notice that almost all of the items on your laundry list are reactive, post event training. While I think it's prudent to train in response capabilities. I'd rather train to be able put two rounds center of mass than have have to try and stop my wife's arterial bleeding because some fucking asshole at a movie theater decided to start shooting up the crowd or some thug wannabe banger from MS-13 decides to try and stick a knife in us for some initiation.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that people should take courses like these. There are any number of good wekeend courses in Tactical Medicine, CRI and TMI are nationwide and have great curricula.

Risk aversion or risk mitigation? Some risks will always be there. A car accident is random and there isn't much you can do except perhaps avoid driving on I64 West towards Richmond out of Virginia Beach between 3 and 6 PM. Or driving after midnight - I assume every oncoming driver is drunk and mentally prepare myself for reaction. Those events have a randomness and risk associated with them that are a function of society at large but lack malevolent intent. Negligent yes, malevolence, not likely.

Risk aversion or risk mitigation wrt asocial sociopaths who have decided that you are their target? You don't have choice. Action (or inaction) driven by expectations based on how you think things should be do nothing in these scenarios except ensure the outcome. Which is almost always not favorable to you.

Not "you", you. The generic "you".

Time to strap on the iron and go pick tomatoes.

I kid..........

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 21, 2012 1:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Call it whatever you want--the process is the same: how do I reduce risks of mortality to family? In a civilized society, we already did the experiments you two are talking "around". Works better to be selective.

The ave person simply cannot do what you find "fun" (face it, that is the reason you do it--you enjoy physical fitness, empowerment, etc., etc.; all in a good way, trust me--I do too; I own more than a dozen guns...my .44 is BIG, so in case you think that's the issue, it is NOT. I am HUGE on gun ownership--this is all ACADEMIC discussion, which I love to do, right?).

But Ring hits the nail on the head: the Wild West WAS precisely the example you articulate--it turned out to be much safer NOT to arm EVERYONE but to arm a few, like you, that know what they are doing...period.

Right? That's my only pt in all this...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jacky Hughes Date: Jul 20, 2012 10:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

If people keep doing what they have always done,
they keep getting what they have always got.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jul 20, 2012 9:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

[backs away slowly]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Jul 20, 2012 10:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

You mean something like this?

Dead%2520NRA.jpg
From July 20, 2012


Seriously, I agree with some of your points. My Uncle In Law is an instructor at Gunsite Traning Center here in AZ. Having gone through some of their courses, I've seen first hand the differenct between the casual weekend-shooter, out in the desert plinking beer cans at 25 yards to a well trained sniper putting a tight group into a target's head at 1500 yards.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jul 20, 2012 10:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

I just stole that pic.

Talk about juxtaposition....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 20, 2012 8:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Apparently he also had a bullet proof vest on. So it was dark, there was some sort of smoke or tear gas and you would have had to take Gordon Liddy's advice when aiming at ATF agents.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Jul 20, 2012 8:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

what if Obama's daughters were in the theater? He mentioned that in his speech...
well, dear Prez, they would have been protected by the well armed Secret Service

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jul 20, 2012 9:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Something tells me you're not a big fan of our president.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Jul 20, 2012 10:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Is anybody?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jul 20, 2012 9:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Yeah I am. Compared to the previous 8 years and the clown the GOP trotted out this round, I can think if a lot worse. I can think of better too but in todays climate I'm constantly surrounded by I'd definitely rather have what we have. Flame away whoever I probably won't engage back.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Jul 20, 2012 9:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

and thats what we have, 2 sides that think they are correct and with the facts to prove it. The one side KNOWING that the other side is wrong. The USA divided by their custom made selected media of garbage in, garbage out.

and the strong men rule. The media tells us how to feel, now it's "Shock and disbelief"

poppycock! no flames here. Be your own country

This post was modified by cosmicharIie on 2012-07-21 04:42:47

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jul 20, 2012 11:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

Actually I see plenty wrong with both " sides" but youre right that is pretty much what its come to. Im pretty tired of politics and I dont find any joy in arguing about politics at my age.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Jul 21, 2012 10:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: the dark knight

grid lock is how the founding fathers planned it. Neither side gets to run unfettered with the ball or we'd be done by now as the uncontrolled vision of either side of the aisle is disaster (or as Jerry would say; didaster). One steals from the poor to feed the rich and claims it as WWJD and the other steals from the rich to feed the even richer while throwing a bone to the poor to keep them voting "right" but still living in shit. In the end its all about the rich and we are just the brain dead fertalizer.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)